Loading...
Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 01/16/2002MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT January 16, 2002 PRESENT: John Key, Chairman Thomas Cross Michael Norrie J. D. Ruiz Les Seipel Willa Burgess Jose Garcia Dr. Dana Mills Steve Seese, City Planning Administrator Marty Odom, Planner I ABSENT: Dawn Murer 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m present and able to transact business. CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date By Time 0 Members 0 0 0 0 0 Alternate 0 Alternate 0 Alternate 0 City Staff 0 0 Alternate by Chairman Key noting that a quorum was II. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Key introduced the new alternate member, Mr. Jose Garcia and Dr. Dana Mills. Mr. Seese administered the oath of office to them. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the December 19, 2001 Board of Adjustment meeting were approved by the Board. IV. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Variance to Reduce the Required Setback from 30 feet to 10 feet 4319 McNiel Case V 02 -01 Applicant ................. ...........................Jerry Davis Property ................... ...........................4319 McNeil Avenue Requested Action ........ .......................Variance Purpose ........................ ......................Construct a church activity building 10 feet from the adjacent property line rather than the required 30 feet. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 1 COMMENTARY The applicant represents Saint Mark's United Methodist Church located at 4319 McNeil Ave. The church currently occupies four separate parcels of land. The church wishes to build an activity building on the southern most tract of land, which is currently used for parking. The zoning ordinance requires a 30 -foot setback from the property line of an adjacent single - family use. This requires the proposed activity building to be setback 30 feet from the south property line of the Church. The Church wishes to construct the building 10 feet from the property line and is therefore requesting a variance. Replatting the land into one parcel may allow the activity building to be built in a manner that meets the setback. Staff believes that the applicant's desire not to replat is based upon the requirement for storm water detention. QUALIFYING CRITERIA a. That special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or building in the same district. Applicant's statement: "The request is necessary to permit the proposed activity building to fit on the vacant lot owned by the church." Staff response: Staff contends that re- platting these lots into one lot would remove an internal lot line thus allowing the activity building to be moved and meet the required 30 foot setback. b. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Applicant's statement: "The geometry of the lot was established when it was originally platted. The building size selected is the minimum necessary to perform its intended functions." Staff response: It has been the applicant's decision to keep the use occupying four separate lots. Since this could be a situation to be addressed by any land use expansion and since a remedy exists, staff feels that no special conditions exist. C. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of a right commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. Applicant's statement: "The surrounding properties are residential lots with standard 5 foot side setbacks. This request is for a minimum side setback of 10 feet on the south side of the lot. Additional buffering will be provided by the construction of a sixfoot tall privacy fence." Staff response: The five -foot setback requirement is between residential uses. The 30- foot setback requirement is for cases in which a nonresidential use is adjacent to a residential use. d. That the granting of the variance would otherwise be in harmony with the objectives of this Ordinance and would not confer upon the applicant any special BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 2 privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Applicant's statement: "Granting the variance would not result in a detrimental effect on the adjacent property. A minimum of {a} 10 foot side setback and construction of a six foot privacy fence would provide an adequate buffer in this particular case." Staff response: The granting of the variance would confer upon the applicant a special privilege. Staff agrees that a buffering fence may be sufficient to mitigate negative affects of non - residential land uses neighboring residential uses. Staff feels that the applicant has not shown a special circumstance or hardship, other than financial, that would constitute the granting of a variance. EVALUATION CRITERIA In evaluating a variance request once it has been determined by the Board that the request qualifies to be heard by the Board, the Zoning Ordinance, Section 7340 requires that the following criteria be used: a. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Staff feels that may be contrary to the public interest to allow a reduction of the setback requirement because the applicant has not shown a hardship. b. Special conditions exist, other that financial hardship alone, whereby a literal enforcement of the terms of the Ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship to the owner of the land. Staff feels that there is a solution to the problem other than the granting of a variance. C. The variance will not permit an activity upon the land which is not allowed by the terms of the Zoning Ordinance. A church and related activities are permitted uses through the conditional use process. d. The granting of the variance: Is consistent with the intent of this Ordinance; The intent of the regulation is to provide a compatible buffer for residences. Is in harmony therewith; The adjacent land is presently developed and has a residence. Will not be injurious to the neighborhood; A variance may allow non - residential activities to occur too close to residences. Or detrimental to the public welfare. Granting this variance maybe detrimental to the public welfare. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 3 RECOMMENDATION Staff feels that the applicant has not proven that a special condition exists, nor has the applicant proven a hardship other than financial. Without evidence of a hardship, staff does not recommend approval of this variance. Note: Any variance approval will be contingent upon the approval of a conditional use permit. Mr. Jerry Davis, applicant, was sworn in by Chairman Key. Chairman Key asked Mr. Seese to comment on the staff report regarding replatting. Mr. Seese explained that the replatting is based on developmental requirements not the storm water detention requirements. He continued by stating that replatting could trigger a requirement for storm water detention but it is not the cause. Consideration of the Qualifying Criteria of this Variance Request: Mr. Seese stated that there are no peculiar circumstances attached to this property that do not apply to surrounding property. If replatting this property were to occur, the proposed addition could be moved closer to the main structure which would be closer to satisfying the setback requirements. Chairman Key inquired about replatting the four lots into one; Mr. Seese then commented that a variance would not be required in that circumstance. Mr. Seipel asked if zoning resulted in the church being constructed across property lines. Mr. Seese stated that the subdivision regulations would govern this situation. These regulations were in effect in 1965 and it is possible the church was constructed prior to that time. Mr. Seese stated the issue is the applicant prefers not to plat the four lots into one lot. Regarding the third requirement, Mr. Seese commented that all non - residential uses would be required to comply with the setback requirements or replat the property. Chairman Key asked Mr. Davis if he understood that replatting would eliminate the need for a variance; Mr. Davis stated he was not aware of that issue. He continued that if the building were to be moved over, the situation would be in compliance. However, since the building is parallel to the curb and street, it is the Church's plan to have a porte cochere between the building and the church. Mr. Seese explained in detail the options of replatting this property. Mr. Seese also noted that 34 surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Two (2) replied in favor and two (2) were opposed. Chairman Key stated that the direction of these four qualifying criteria is for a situation with no other alternative except a variance from the ordinance. This situation has a simple solution, replatting the property which would move the boundaries of the lots. Mr. Cross made a motion that the applicant does not meet the qualifying criteria for Case V 02- 01. Mr. Seipel seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. The variance application fails for failure to meet the qualifying criteria. V. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 4 John Key, Chairman BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 6 Date